Live data from Hacker News

A world of free movement would be $78T richer

economist.com

81–90 of 402 posts

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#81
post #3

>"A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer" ...A world where everyone's mother is a prostitute would be considerably more economically active. Its a shame the economy is seen as a end rather than a means.

Someone quoted something on this site a while ago to the effect of "a measure that becomes a goal is no longer a good measure"

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#82
post #45

This article seems symptomatic of a general decline in the quality of The Economist. I used to be a subscriber but there was a noticeable sharp drop some time ago, I think when Micklethwaite stepped down as editor, and things seem to have got worse since. Shoddy thinking, bizarre arguments and extremist conclusions seem more common than they used to be. Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by movin…

Have you ever considered that what you consider "western values" are in fact values that emerge in a society that lives in conditions where there is political stability and economic opportunity? That people's "culture" is affected by the environment around them as a general pattern?

I've considered this and deemed it to be false. A great counter example is Imperial China around 1300-1400AD. They were fantastically wealthy and politically stable yet "western values" did not develop.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your model strongly predicts that fertility of preexisting natives would be higher in areas with more unskilled immigrants. The opposite is true, and the effect is not small. It is safe to reject your model. Moreover, if you do not adjust your beliefs in response to contrary evidence, it is appropriate to presume that you are arguing in bad faith rather than trying to figure out the truth, and dismiss everything else…

Your model strongly predicts that fertility of preexisting natives would be higher in areas with more unskilled immigrants. The opposite is true, and the effect is not small. It seems like you have a lot of confounding variables to work through to make this case with such confidence, if you have research that makes this case I would like to see links to it.

Yes, there are confounding variables; population density in particular jumps out. But once you acknowledge that population density has enough negative causal impact through various channels on native fertility to be worth explicitly controlling for, you've already rejected mozumder's model: what effect does immigration have on population density?

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#84
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we're not talking about an additional place here or there. When people say childcare they tend to mean professional daycare, no? That's very much people bottlenecked. But if immigrants are more fertile than the locals, which they usually are at least for a while, then if the Economist was right about immigrants being well employed in construction jobs and hairdressers such, you'd expect an sudden influx to…

> When people say childcare they tend to mean professional daycare There is a professional daycare on my block. I see the lady who runs it at our corner coffee shop from time to time. Her kids were in there with everyone else’s. (This was a point she marketed.) She’s an immigrant from Kenya.

[deleted]

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#85
post #45

This article seems symptomatic of a general decline in the quality of The Economist. I used to be a subscriber but there was a noticeable sharp drop some time ago, I think when Micklethwaite stepped down as editor, and things seem to have got worse since. Shoddy thinking, bizarre arguments and extremist conclusions seem more common than they used to be. Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by movin…

Have you ever considered that what you consider "western values" are in fact values that emerge in a society that lives in conditions where there is political stability and economic opportunity? That people's "culture" is affected by the environment around them as a general pattern?

Yes, I have considered that. It doesn't appear to be true.

If it was, cases like Rahman's would not have happened. After moving from Bangladesh as a young person, and becoming surrounded by political stability and economic opportunity, he would have adopted western values and become an ordinary politician. So would the people in Tower Hamlets, which has a very large Bangladeshi immigrant population.

In fact what happened was this:

• He engaged in massive election fraud, including buying votes, organising large numbers of faked votes, bribery, buying support of local Bangladeshi TV channels, intimidating witnesses and doubling council funding to local Bengali charities in return for their political support.

• He did this so successfully that he won a local election that was found (years later) so riven with corruption that it was declared by a judge to be entirely void and would have to be re-run from scratch.

• He also gained votes by telling Muslim voters that his political opponent was racist and that voting for him was an "Islamic duty".

• He was kicked out of the Labour party for having links with an extremist group.

• He benefited from a group of "enforcers", people attached to youth organisations funded by his council, who would visit and intimidate any Bangladeshi who spoke out against the mayor. This included threatening to burn down the houses of witnesses during the corruption trial.

• He has also been accused of extensive mortgage fraud and tax evasion.

Corruption, bribery, intimidation of voters, stuffing ballot boxes, buying political support, exploiting religion and race to gain support - these are all the sorts of behaviours strongly associated with third world countries like Bangladesh, but they showed up in the UK in the modern era too, even with people who moved as children.

If values were created by the environment, then this wouldn't happen (unless you consider the cultural effects of immigrants who pool together in the same areas to be able to overwhelm the cultural effects of the new host country).

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#86
post #45

This article seems symptomatic of a general decline in the quality of The Economist. I used to be a subscriber but there was a noticeable sharp drop some time ago, I think when Micklethwaite stepped down as editor, and things seem to have got worse since. Shoddy thinking, bizarre arguments and extremist conclusions seem more common than they used to be. Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by movin…

Minor note: I'm not sure why you mentioned one corrupt politician. I don't think it bolsters your point.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your model strongly predicts that fertility of preexisting natives would be higher in areas with more unskilled immigrants. The opposite is true, and the effect is not small. It seems like you have a lot of confounding variables to work through to make this case with such confidence, if you have research that makes this case I would like to see links to it.

Yes, there are confounding variables; population density in particular jumps out. But once you acknowledge that population density has enough negative causal impact through various channels on native fertility to be worth explicitly controlling for, you've already rejected mozumder's model: what effect does immigration have on population density?

Why would one acknowledge that population density has a "negative causal impact" without evidence of such? You can argue that density and fertility are correlated, sure, but causation is a much higher bar. Why would you restrict the model such that you assume that any increase in density at any starting level of density would decrease fertility? Why would you assume that without evidence?

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in literally the most diverse area of the US, and no, people from South America and Ohio really aren't different at all. You could swap out our actual Peruvian home builders for someone in Ohio (if they wanted the job) and it would be the same. Like I said, there is no excuse. Cultural differences aren't big enough to warrant borders and impose trade restrictions.

> I live in literally the most diverse area of the US, and no, people from South America and Ohio really aren't different at all. Maybe you should leave your echo chamber every once in a while. I also live in the most diverse area of my nation, and while it is all fun and games when I am around well educated, well mannered people from different countries it is less fun when I have to cross the street in a diverse are…

People could (and probably would) still live in communities with common cultural and religious ties, even in a world without national borders. And, in this world of international borders, people from disparate backgrounds manage to immigrate and integrate just fine.

National boundaries don't really map to the borders of cultural and religious identity (as can be readily seen in the Middle East), so your argument here (which seems to be that the former is needed to preserve the latter) doesn't seem well supported.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#89
post #86
post #45

This article seems symptomatic of a general decline in the quality of The Economist. I used to be a subscriber but there was a noticeable sharp drop some time ago, I think when Micklethwaite stepped down as editor, and things seem to have got worse since. Shoddy thinking, bizarre arguments and extremist conclusions seem more common than they used to be. Firstly, the core thesis of the argument is that merely by movin…

Minor note: I'm not sure why you mentioned one corrupt politician. I don't think it bolsters your point.

See my comment below. It's a useful anecdote because the politician in question wasn't merely corrupt. He turned Tower Hamlets into an area with the same political problems of Bangladesh itself - possible because so many of the people who lived there were also from Bangladesh and were willing to e.g. act as enforcers, sell votes, exploit or be exploited by religious loyalties, take part in electoral fraud and so on.

By himself he couldn't have accomplished much, but with a large base of people for whom this sort of thing was culturally acceptable in that electoral ward, suddenly a part of London started to look politically much like a third world country.

Re: A world of free movement would be $78T richer

#90
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever considered that what you consider "western values" are in fact values that emerge in a society that lives in conditions where there is political stability and economic opportunity? That people's "culture" is affected by the environment around them as a general pattern?

Yes, I have considered that. It doesn't appear to be true. If it was, cases like Rahman's would not have happened. After moving from Bangladesh as a young person, and becoming surrounded by political stability and economic opportunity, he would have adopted western values and become an ordinary politician. So would the people in Tower Hamlets, which has a very large Bangladeshi immigrant population. In fact what happ…

Having interacted with immigrants from many different places, I find for a vast majority of them, the environment does in fact determine their culture. Are there a few for whom it doesn't? Sure. In the same way there are criminals even among people who grow up in such an environment.
Post reply on HN